His Mission, form part of His Humiliation. They also belong to that way which He had chosen in his initial conquest of the Tempter in the Wilderness, when He chose, not the sudden display of absolute power for the subdual of His people, but the painful, slow method
of meeting the wants, and addressing Himself to the understanding and capacity of those over Whom He would reign. In this view, it seems as if we could gain a fresh understanding, not only of the expediency of His final departure, so far as concerned the future teaching of the disciples by the Holy Spirit, but of His own longing for the Advent of the Comforter. In truth, the two teachers and the two modes of teaching could not be together, and the Ascension of the Christ, as the end of His Humiliation, marked the Advent of the Holy Ghost, as bestowing another mode of teaching than that of the days of His Humiliation.
And so, thinking of the scene on the evening before, we can understand how, 'very early, while it was still very dark,' [a St. Mark i. 35.] Jesus rose up, and went into a solitary place to pray. The use of the same expression [1 Jin St. Mark xiii. 35 enables us to fix the time as that of the fourth night-watch, or between three and six o'clock of the morning. It was not till some time afterwards, that even those, who had so lately been called to His closest fellowship, rose, and, missing Him, followed. Jesus had prayed in that solitude, and consecrated it. After such a day, and in prospect of entering on His second journey through Galilee [2 The circumstances will be referred to in the sequel.] this time in so far different circumstances
He must prevent the dawn of the morning in prayer. And by this also would they learn, that He was not merely a worker of miracles, but that He, Whose Word demons obeyed, lived a Life, not of outward but of inward power, in fellowship with His Father, and baptized his work with prayer. But as yet, and, indeed, in measure all through His Life on earth, it seemed difficult for them in any measure to realise this. 'All men seek for Thee,' and therefore they would have had Him return to Capernaum. But this was the very reason why He had withdrawn ere dawn of day. He had come forth, and that, [3 The expression in St. Luke iv. 43 shows, that the 'coming forth' (St. Mark i. 38) cannot be limited to His leaving Capernaum.] not to attract the crowds, and be proclaimed a King, but to preach the Kingdom of God. Once more we say it: so speaks not, nor acts the hero of Jewish legend!
As the three Synoptists accordantly state, Jesus now entered on His second Galilean journey. There can be little doubt, that the chronological succession of events is here accurately indicated by the more circumstantial narrative in St. Mark's Gospel. [1 The following are, briefly, some of the considerations which determine the chronological order here adopted: (1.) This event could not have taken place after the Sermon on the Mount, since then the twelve Apostles were already called, nor yet after the call of St. Matthew. (2) From the similes employed (about the lilies of the field, &c), the Sermon on the Mount seems to have taken place in spring; this event in early autumn. On the other hand, the order in St. Mark exactly fits in, and also in the main agrees, with that in St. Luke, while, lastly, it exhibits the growing persecutions from Jerusalem, of which we have here the first traces.] The arrangement of St. Luke appears that of historical grouping, while that of St. Matthew is determined by the Hebraic plan of his Gospel, which seems constructed on the model of the Pentateuch, [2 This is ingeniously indicated in Professor Delitzsch's Entsteh. d. Kanon. Evang., although, in my view, the theory cannot be carried out in the full details attempted by the Professor. But such a general conception of the Gospel by St. Matthew is not only reasonable in itself, but explains his peculiar arrangement of events.] as if the establishment of the Kingdom by the Messiah were presented as the fulfilment of its preparatory planting in Israel. But this second journey through Galilee, which the three Gospels connect with the stay at Capernaum, marks a turning-point in the working of the Christ. As already stated, the
occurrences at the 'Unknown Feast,' [3 On the date of this feast comp. Appendix XV.] in Jerusalem, formed a new point of departure. Christ had fully presented His claims to the Sanhedrists, and they had been fully rejected by the Scribes and the people. Henceforth He separated Himself from that 'untoward generation;' henceforth, also, began His systematic persecution by the authorities, when His movements were tracked and watched. Jesus went alone to Jerusalem. This, also, was fitting. Equally so, that on His return He called His disciples to be His followers; and that from Capernaum He entered, in their company, on a new phase in His Work.
Significantly, His Work began where that of the Rabbis, we had almost said of the Old Testament saints, ended. Whatever remedies, medical, magical, or sympathetic, Rabbinic writings may indicate for various kinds of disease, leprosy is not included in the catalogue. They left aside what even the Old Testament marked as moral death, by enjoining those so stricken to avoid all contact with the living, and even to bear the appearance of mourners. As the leper passed by, his clothes rent, his hair dishevelled, [4 From this women were excepted, Sot. iii. 8.] and the lower part of his face and his upper lip covered, [a Lev. xiii. 45.] it was as one going to death who reads his own burial-service, while the mournful words, 'Unclean! Unclean!' which he uttered, proclaimed that his was both living and moral death. Again, the Old Testament, and even Rabbinism, took, in the measures prescribed in leprosy, primarily a moral, or rather a ritual, and only secondarily a sanitary, view of the case. The isolation already indicated, which banished lepers from all intercourse except with those similarly stricken, [1 They were not allowed to hold intercourse with persons under other defilement than leprosy, Pes. 67 a.] and forebade their entering not only the Temple or Jerusalem, but any walled city, [2 These were considered as walled since the time of Joshua, Kel. i. 7, and their sanctity equal to that of the camp of Israel, and greater than that of un walled towns.] could not have been merely prompted by the wish to prevent infection. For all the laws in regard to leprosy are expressly stated not to have application in the case of heathens, proselytes before their conversion, and even of Israelites on their birth. [3 Neg. iii. 1; vii. 1; xi. 1; xii 1.] The same inference must also be drawn from the circumstance, that the priestly examination and subsequent isolation of the leper were not to commence during the marriage-week, or on festive days, [a Neg. iii. 2.] since, evidently, infection would have beenmost likely to spread in such circumstances. [4 The following parts are declaredin the Mishnah as untainted by leprosy: within the eye, ear, nose, and mouth; the folds of the skin, especially those of the neck; under the female breast; the armpit; the sole of the foot, the nails, the head, and the beard (Neg. vi. 8).]
It has already been stated, that Rabbinism confessed itself powerless in presence of this living death. Although, as Michaelis rightly suggests, [b Das Mos. Recht, vol. iv. p. 195.] the sacrificial ritual for the cleansed leper implies, at least, the possibility of a cure, it is in every instance traced to the direct agency of God. [5 Michaelis views the whole question chiefly from the standpoint of sanitary police.] Hence the mythical theory, which, to be rational, must show some precedent to account for the origination of the narrative in the Gospel, here once more breaks down. [6 It is, though I think hesitatingly, propounded by Strauss (vol. ii. pp. 56, 57). He has been satisfactorily answered by Volkmar (Marcus, p. 110).] Keim cannot deny the evident authenticity of the Evangelic narrative, and has no better explanation to offer than that of the old Rationalists, which Strauss had already so fully refuted [7 u. s. pp. 53, 54.], that the poor sufferer only asked of Jesus to declare, not to make, him clean. [8 Jesu von Naz. ii. p. 174. This is among the weakest
portions of the book. Keim must have strongly felt 'the telling marks of the authenticity of this narrative,' when he was driven to an explanation which makes Jesus 'present Himself as a Scribe.'] In truth, the possibility of any cure through human agency was never contemplated by the Jews. Josephus speaks of it as possibly granted to prayer, [c Ant. iii. 11. 3.] but in a manner betokening a pious phraseology without serious meaning. We may go further, and say that not only did Rabbinism never suggest the cure of a leper, but that its treatment of those sufferers presents the most marked contrast to that of the Saviour. And yet, as if writing its own condemnation, one of the titles which it gives to the Messiah is 'the Leprous,' the King Messiah being represented as seated in the entrance to Rome, surrounded by, and relieving all misery and disease, in fulfilment of Is. liii. 4. [a Sanh. 98 b.] [1 See the passage in full in the Appendix on Messianic Prophecies.]
We need not here enumerate the various symptoms, by which the Rabbinic law teaches us to recognise true leprosy. [2 These are detailed in Neg. i. 1-4; ii. 1; iii. 3-6; vii. 1; ix. 2, 3.] Any one capable of it might make the medical inspection, although only a descendant of Aaron could formally pronounce clean or unclean, [b Neg. iii. 1.] Once declared leprous, the sufferer was soon made to feel the utter heartlessness of Rabbinism. To banish him outside walled towns [c Kel. i. 7.] may have been a necessity, which, perhaps, required to be enforced by the threatened penalty of forty stripes save one. [d Pes. 67.] Similarly, it might be a right, even merciful, provision, that in the Synagogues lepers were to be the first to enter and the last to leave, and that they should occupy a separate compartment (Mechitsah), ten palms high, and six feet wide, [e Neg. xiii 12.] For, from the symbolism and connection between the physical and the psychical, [3 Undoubtedly the deepest and most philosophical treatment of this subject is that in the now somewhat rare, and unfortunately uncompleted, work of Molitor, Philosophie d. Gesch. (see vol. iii. pp. 126 &c, and 253 &c). The author is, however, perhaps too much imbued with the views of the Kabbalah.] the Old Testament, in its rites and institutions, laid the greatest stress on 'clean and unclean.' To sum it up in briefest compass, and leaving out of view leprosy of clothes or houses, [4 According to
